Zombies and Quad guns

[Venemox]

This is where context matters, but also it doesn't state if you haven't got a weapon you can't use it, merely you can use it in lieu of your ordinary ranged weapon. Whilst a permissive rule set, the words "instead of it's own weapon" is not definitive to mean "you must have a weapon to use the gun emplacement". It's a massive leap to assume so.

 

I have to disagree. A model cannot fire a weapon "instead of it's own weapon" when it does not have a weapon in the first place. To assume that it can would require a leap. The default position would have to be that it cannot. As Gentlemanloser asked earlier in the thread, which weapon is it firing instead of?

 

I suppose, then, that my BA Terminator Librarian cannot manifest a BRB Wtchfire power then, because it says 'instead of firing a weapon' as well?

[Captain Idaho]

This is where context matters, but also it doesn't state if you haven't got a weapon you can't use it, merely you can use it in lieu of your ordinary ranged weapon. Whilst a permissive rule set, the words "instead of it's own weapon" is not definitive to mean "you must have a weapon to use the gun emplacement". It's a massive leap to assume so.

 

I have to disagree. A model cannot fire a weapon "instead of it's own weapon" when it does not have a weapon in the first place. To assume that it can would require a leap. The default position would have to be that it cannot. As Gentlemanloser asked earlier in the thread, which weapon is it firing instead of?

 

It doesn't matter which weapon, because it's not a definitive ruling. As I mentioned above, "Instead of your own weapon" is not equal to "you cannot use a gun emplacenent if you don't have a ranged weapon".

[Morollan]

This is where context matters, but also it doesn't state if you haven't got a weapon you can't use it, merely you can use it in lieu of your ordinary ranged weapon. Whilst a permissive rule set, the words "instead of it's own weapon" is not definitive to mean "you must have a weapon to use the gun emplacement". It's a massive leap to assume so.

 

I have to disagree. A model cannot fire a weapon "instead of it's own weapon" when it does not have a weapon in the first place. To assume that it can would require a leap. The default position would have to be that it cannot. As Gentlemanloser asked earlier in the thread, which weapon is it firing instead of?

 

It doesn't matter which weapon, because it's not a definitive ruling. As I mentioned above, "Instead of your own weapon" is not equal to "you cannot use a gun emplacenent if you don't have a ranged weapon".

 

And again I have to ask are you firing the quad gun instead of your own weapon? The answer to that is 100% "no" so to pretend that this is somehow irrelevant is somewhat strange.

[dswanick]

This is where context matters, but also it doesn't state if you haven't got a weapon you can't use it, merely you can use it in lieu of your ordinary ranged weapon. Whilst a permissive rule set, the words "instead of it's own weapon" is not definitive to mean "you must have a weapon to use the gun emplacement". It's a massive leap to assume so.

 

I have to disagree. A model cannot fire a weapon "instead of it's own weapon" when it does not have a weapon in the first place. To assume that it can would require a leap. The default position would have to be that it cannot. As Gentlemanloser asked earlier in the thread, which weapon is it firing instead of?

 

It doesn't matter which weapon, because it's not a definitive ruling. As I mentioned above, "Instead of your own weapon" is not equal to "you cannot use a gun emplacenent if you don't have a ranged weapon".

 

And again I have to ask are you firing the quad gun instead of your own weapon? The answer to that is 100% "no" so to pretend that this is somehow irrelevant is somewhat strange.

So, as asked above, is every Psyker without a ranged weapon not allowed to use Witchfire powers?

"

Witchfire powers aer manifested during the Psyker's Shooting phase

instead of firing a weapon

.

", BRB,

Pg

.69

[Captain Idaho]

It's irrelevant because the rule doesn't state you need a weapon to use the gun emplacement. It states you can fire the gun emplacement instead of one of your other weapons. No more, no less.

 

Funny how every point I've made has been ignored barring attempts to take apart a single sentence in my overall explanation. :lol: So units out of range with their shorter ranged weapons are debarred from firing the gun emplacement?

 

Grammatically does it state a reason you can't fire the weapon? (no as I explained above twice)

[tvih]

As for the zombies, if they indeed don't fire any weapons in general - I haven't really looked at the zombie rules before this - then that's that, it's indeed a specific exception.

 

But that still means nothing to units like assault terminators. Who can, as stated, turn off their weapons, put a thunder hammer on the ground, etc etc.

 

Here's a "funny" thing also. Grenades are treated as shooting weapons when used in the shooting phase. So now magically a power-armored terminator captain with TH+SS can in fact use the Quad Gun, but a terminator captain with TH+SS can't? Which once again equals to stupid. What's even funnier though is that if we really want to go down this route of insanity, models with no shooting weapons can't even run because the rulebook says "In their shooting phase, units may choose to Run instead of firing." A model with no shooting weapons can't fire, thus they clearly can't run either. Do some of you really want to this sort of absurdity just to stick to your precious perceived-as-RAW?

 

Frankly anyone arguing something as stupid as requiring a ranged weapon to fire an emplaced weapon wouldn't be worth playing against for me.

[Gentlemanloser]

Cap, I've not been ignoring you.

 

But the shooting phase rules are quite clear.

 

If a unit isn't armed with at least one ranged weapon, it cannot be nominated to shoot.

 

You've not addressed this point.

 

Following the normal rules for shooting, includes this primary step.

[Morollan]

It's irrelevant because the rule doesn't state you need a weapon to use the gun emplacement. It states you can fire the gun emplacement instead of one of your other weapons. No more, no less.

 

Funny how every point I've made has been ignored barring attempts to take apart a single sentence in my overall explanation. :) So units out of range with their shorter ranged weapons are debarred from firing the gun emplacement?

 

Grammatically does it state a reason you can't fire the weapon? (no as I explained above twice)

 

I've ignored all other points because until this issue is bypassed they are irrelevant. The rules say:

 

One model in base contact with the gun emplacement can fire it instead of his own weapon, following the normal rules for shooting.

 

If a model with no ranged weapon attempts to fire it, is it firing it instead of his own weapon? Answer - No. Therefore it cannot fire the gun emplacement. Is this stupid? Possibly. But it's still correct according to RAW.

[Captain Idaho]

Cap, I've not been ignoring you.

 

I was being deliberately melodramatic and hard done by!

[dswanick]

If a model with no ranged weapon attempts to fire it, is it firing it instead of his own weapon? Answer - No. Therefore it cannot fire the gun emplacement. Is this stupid? Possibly. But it's still correct according to RAW.

So you play it that a Psyker with no ranged weapon can't use Witchfire powers?

You play it that a model not equipped with a ranged weapon can't Run?

[Grey Mage]

It's irrelevant because the rule doesn't state you need a weapon to use the gun emplacement. It states you can fire the gun emplacement instead of one of your other weapons. No more, no less.

 

Funny how every point I've made has been ignored barring attempts to take apart a single sentence in my overall explanation. :D So units out of range with their shorter ranged weapons are debarred from firing the gun emplacement?

 

Grammatically does it state a reason you can't fire the weapon? (no as I explained above twice)

 

I've ignored all other points because until this issue is bypassed they are irrelevant. The rules say:

 

One model in base contact with the gun emplacement can fire it instead of his own weapon, following the normal rules for shooting.

 

If a model with no ranged weapon attempts to fire it, is it firing it instead of his own weapon? Answer - No. Therefore it cannot fire the gun emplacement. Is this stupid? Possibly. But it's still correct according to RAW.

I disagree.

 

The rules provide us with evidence otherwise. How so? Because we also note that running is done instead of firing their weapons. Id put forth that whatever way we might interpret it, the correct way is going to be the one that works reliably accross all situations.

 

Each model has an action during the shooting phase. If can shoot, run, or do other such things with this action. Each of these is an equivalent actions. Some models, like monstrous creatures, can do a particular action multiple times- or simply better, as in the case of fleet. They still count as a single action.

[Morollan]

It's irrelevant because the rule doesn't state you need a weapon to use the gun emplacement. It states you can fire the gun emplacement instead of one of your other weapons. No more, no less.

 

Funny how every point I've made has been ignored barring attempts to take apart a single sentence in my overall explanation. :) So units out of range with their shorter ranged weapons are debarred from firing the gun emplacement?

 

Grammatically does it state a reason you can't fire the weapon? (no as I explained above twice)

 

I've ignored all other points because until this issue is bypassed they are irrelevant. The rules say:

 

One model in base contact with the gun emplacement can fire it instead of his own weapon, following the normal rules for shooting.

 

If a model with no ranged weapon attempts to fire it, is it firing it instead of his own weapon? Answer - No. Therefore it cannot fire the gun emplacement. Is this stupid? Possibly. But it's still correct according to RAW.

I disagree.

 

The rules provide us with evidence otherwise. How so? Because we also note that running is done instead of firing their weapons. Id put forth that whatever way we might interpret it, the correct way is going to be the one that works reliably accross all situations.

 

Each model has an action during the shooting phase. If can shoot, run, or do other such things with this action. Each of these is an equivalent actions. Some models, like monstrous creatures, can do a particular action multiple times- or simply better, as in the case of fleet. They still count as a single action.

 

That's all good common sense but as this is the OR we are interested in the RAW. Yes, strictly speaking a model with no ranged attack cannot run according to RAW as it is only permitted to do so instead of firing. If the rule said "A model that does not make a ranged attack in the shooting phase may choose to run" then that would be okay but GW actually said "In their Shooting phase, units may choose to Run instead of firing" which falls back into the silly situation we have with the quad gun. They cannot fire so they cannot opt to do something else instead of firing. Would I play it that way? No. Not unless someone was trying to exploit rules against me, in which case they're fair game!

[King Willy]

You voided the whole argument

You can t say that quad gun can t fire but claim that you wouldn't play it that way cause it s stupid because that's often why RAI is use.

You can t say that you can run without a ranged weapon because it s stupid but a hammernator can t shoot with a quad gun because the same wording.

 

It either applies across the whole board (RAW) or is just a bad use of words (RAI). No mix and matching

[Morollan]

You voided the whole argument

You can t say that quad gun can t fire but claim that you wouldn't play it that way cause it s stupid because that's often why RAI is use.

You can t say that you can run without a ranged weapon because it s stupid but a hammernator can t shoot with a quad gun because the same wording.

 

It either applies across the whole board (RAW) or is just a bad use of words (RAI). No mix and matching

 

It is RAW, it is stupid and I wouldn't play it that way unless I was up against a WAAC player who was seeking to exploit rules loopholes. I don't see the problem with that tbh.

[dswanick]

You voided the whole argument

You can t say that quad gun can t fire but claim that you wouldn't play it that way cause it s stupid because that's often why RAI is use.

You can t say that you can run without a ranged weapon because it s stupid but a hammernator can t shoot with a quad gun because the same wording.

 

It either applies across the whole board (RAW) or is just a bad use of words (RAI). No mix and matching

 

It is RAW, it is stupid and I wouldn't play it that way unless I was up against a WAAC player who was seeking to exploit rules loopholes. I don't see the problem with that tbh.

It is not RAW. It is using a convoluted interpretation of the sentence to create a dilemma which does not exist.

"Instead of going to the mall, we can go play miniature golf." does not prevent you from going to play miniature golf if the mall is closed. "Instead of" defines an alternative, it does not require a substitution.

[Gentlemanloser]

Still the Zombies and Assault Temrinators can't operate a Quad Gun as they can't be nominated to shoot in the shooting phase, as they aren't armed with any Ranged Weapons.

 

The operation of a Quad Gun follows normal shooting rules.

 

The first stage of which is ability to be nominated to make a shooting attack.

 

I was being deliberately melodramatic and hard done by!

 

/manhug

 

If the rule said "A model that does not make a ranged attack in the shooting phase may choose to run" then that would be okay but GW actually said "In their Shooting phase, units may choose to Run instead of firing"

 

I support this. ;)

 

Clearity of rules over ambiguous writing that is open to interpretation.

 

Instead of eating the Big Mac you purchased, you can exchange it for a Quater Cheese.

 

You would still require the big mac in order to exchange.

[King Willy]

Then assault termis can t run an gunless Libbys can t cast witch fires

Doesn't that sound silly it s the same use of words thus same rulings can t pick and choose

Either your arguing for all these rulings or not and if you still wouldn't use them this way your entire argument is invalid

[Gentlemanloser]

GW writes ambiguous and badly written rules.

 

That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

 

Either your arguing for all these rulings or not and if you still wouldn't use them this way your entire argument is invalid

 

Supporting the way the rules are written to work, but actually using them differently in personal play in no way invalides anything...

[Morollan]

Then assault termis can t run an gunless Libbys can t cast witch fires

Doesn't that sound silly it s the same use of words thus same rulings can t pick and choose

Either your arguing for all these rulings or not and if you still wouldn't use them this way your entire argument is invalid

 

It is entirely possible to acknowledge a RAW position and still see that it is stupid and goes against common sense and would therefore not be played that way in normal circumstances. I would not generally seek to prevent a Librarian with no ranged weapon from using a Witchfire ability. If however the Librarian player was being a WAAC muppet who was seeking to take advantage of some obscure rules loophole then he can die by the sword too and I can point out that in fact the rules say that no he may not use his Witchfire powers.

[dswanick]

Instead of eating the Big Mac you purchased, you can exchange it for a Quater Cheese.

Because of the word "exchange", not because of the words "instead of".

"Instead of ordering a Big Mac, you can order a QPw/Cheese.". If the store is out of makings for a Big Mac, does that invalidate your ability to order a QP?

[King Willy]

It invalidates it because your acknowledging the use of the RAI ruling over the RAW

[Morollan]

It invalidates it because your acknowledging the use of the RAI ruling over the RAW

 

No it doesn't. Not sure how else I can explain it really. There are plenty of examples of stupid RAW situations that are not played because the RAI is so obvious. That does not change the RAW.

[Gentlemanloser]

Because of the word "exchange", not because of the words "instead of".

"Instead of ordering a Big Mac, you can order a QPw/Cheese.". If the store is out of makings for a Big Mac, does that invalidate your ability to order a QP?

 

True. ;)

 

But the Mall/Golf exmaple misses context. The situation is you're in the shooting phase, and have already nominated to shoot something. In order to shoot the Quad Gun you are allowed to do so instead of shooting your existing weapon.

 

You are not allowed to shoot the Quad gun on it's own.

 

Still, these semantics arguements don't really go anywhere, and I'm more than happy to conceed/drop the point! :) (I'd much prefer rules like these were worded in the way Morollan posted. You could even simply add "Even if the mini doesn't have a ranged weapon" or the like at the end.

 

The meat of the answer here is still the inability to nominate Assault Terminators to shoot in the shooting phase as they aren't armed with any ranged weapons. Which no ones tackled yet.

 

(And I'm sure will revolve around trying to proove that being in B2B with a Quad Gun 'arms' that mini with a ranged weapon)

[Grey Mage]

You voided the whole argument

You can t say that quad gun can t fire but claim that you wouldn't play it that way cause it s stupid because that's often why RAI is use.

You can t say that you can run without a ranged weapon because it s stupid but a hammernator can t shoot with a quad gun because the same wording.

 

It either applies across the whole board (RAW) or is just a bad use of words (RAI). No mix and matching

 

It is RAW, it is stupid and I wouldn't play it that way unless I was up against a WAAC player who was seeking to exploit rules loopholes. I don't see the problem with that tbh.

Believe it or not, I am qualified to say what we are attempting to find in the OR forum.

 

And while RAW is something we pursue, we are also looking for the proper, workable, functional way the rules operate. The difference between pursuing a mental exercise to its xenith and being willfully ignorant is important. The former has its place- and by all means, we can discuss it tell were blue in the face because why not? The latter is not something we need to pursue.

[Loher]

If a model has BS>0, it means it has the required training to fire a weapon. In no way the fact I haven't a weapon prevents me from fire the quad as for the RAW, as it doesn't prevents me from run. The zombies can fire the Quad gun.